The King’s Speech 2026: Turning Inquiry Learning into Law?

Last week’s King’s Speech set out an ambitious legislative programme. Viewed through the lens of public inquiries and major reviews, a striking feature is how many of the proposed measures appear to respond directly to issues repeatedly identified by inquiries, inquests and independent oversight bodies, such as gaps in legal frameworks, institutional culture, victims’ voices, and the failure to act early on known risks. Much of its content reflects familiar terrain for those working in and around major public investigations.

Closing legal gaps exposed by tragedy

One of the most significant announcements is the creation of a new criminal offence covering the planning of mass casualty attacks, even where no ideological motive can be proved. This measure is explicitly designed to close a gap in existing terrorism and criminal law and reflects recommendations made by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation following the Southport killings, where lethal violence fell outside the statutory definition of terrorism.

This mirrors a recurring finding: systems that wait for specific labels rather than looking at behavioural risk often intervene too late. Similar concerns have been raised across counter terrorism reviews, safeguarding inquiries and Prevent related inquests, where a focus on thresholds and categorisation has been said to have obscured emerging danger.

Victims placed closer to the centre

The Speech also reaffirmed proposals for new victim focused legislation, including the Victims, Courts and Public Protection Bill, which aims to enhance the justice system by putting the needs of victims first. Key measures include fast-tracking rape cases, ensuring that convicted offenders face accountability during sentencing, and expanding the role of the Victim's Commissioner.

The King’s Speech also confirmed the Government’s intention to bring forward the Public Office (Accountability) Bill (commonly referred to as the ‘Hillsborough Law’), introducing a statutory duty of candour on public authorities.

This appears to reflect sustained pressure from bereaved families and survivors, reinforced by successive inquiries, to rebalance the relationship between the state and those harmed by public failures. Public inquiries from Hillsborough onward have repeatedly identified institutional defensiveness, inequality of arms between public bodies and families, and the retraumatising effect of prolonged processes with limited accountability.

The proposed reforms seek to respond by placing duties of candour, transparency and participation closer to the heart of public decision making. While the precise legal mechanisms remain to be seen, the direction of travel is firmly aligned with long standing inquiry recommendations about voice, respect and dignity for victims and bereaved families.

Policing reform and institutional accountability

The Speech also promised comprehensive policing reform, a theme that has run consistently through major inquiries, inspection reports and misconduct reviews in recent years. These proposals sit against a backdrop of inquiry findings concerning failures of leadership and supervision, cultural resistance to scrutiny and poor response to victims, particularly in cases involving abuse of power.

State threats, public protection and early intervention

Proposals to strengthen powers against hostile state activity and emerging forms of extreme violence reflect a recognition of increasingly complex and intersecting threats. The framing of these measures within a broader national security agenda signals an understanding that risk is rarely siloed in practice, and that existing frameworks may not fully capture evolving patterns of harm.

This approach acknowledges a lesson that inquiries return to repeatedly: risk accumulates across systems. There is rarely one cause, trigger or mistake which leads to the resulting devasting act.

From inquiry conclusions to legislative action?

What is notable overall is less any single measure, and more the cumulative picture. The Speech signifies legislation that attempts to act on known lessons, which have often emerged from inquiries, inquests and large investigations examining issues of public interest, signalling that these are not only retrospective exercises.

For those working in inquiries, investigations and public law who are passionate about delivering change, the legislative agenda may signal some positive steps on these issues. Whether this marks a genuine turning point will depend, as ever, on the detail of drafting and the commitment to execution.

But the clear connection between inquiry learning and outcomes, and subsequent parliamentary action has rarely been so visible.